Growth Response and Carcass Characteristics of Yearling Steers Subjected to Differing Implant Strategies

A 106-day demonstration utilizing yearling steers to measure feedlot performance and carcass response to implant strategies was conducted at the ISU Allee Demonstration Farm. Treatments were: 100 mg progesterone + 10 mg estradiol benzoate (ComponentÒ EC) on day 0 followed by 120 mg trenbolone acetate + 24 mg estradiol (ComponentÒ TES) implant 57 days later, or 120 mg trenbolone acetate + 24 mg estradiol (ComponentÒ TES) only on day 0. The control group received no implant. The steers were weighed every 28 days and ultrasound data were collected from demonstration initiation until slaughter. The cattle were marketed as one group on d 106 of the demonstration. Implanted cattle had higher average daily gains, heavier carcass weights, larger rib eye areas, and tended to have improved feed efficiency over control steers. Additionally, the reimplanted steers had higher marbling scores than controls, but no differences existed between once and twice-implanted steers.

Encore® Implant Use in Feedlot Steers

A feedlot demonstration utilizing Encore®, a new longterm implant product, was completed at the Allee Demonstration Farm at Newell, Iowa in 1999. Seventyone steers (697 lbs.) were allotted by weight and hide color and assigned to one of three treatments: 1) Encore® (43.9 mg estradiol = E) on day 0; 2) Encore® plus Component® TS (140 mg trenbolone acetate = ETS0) on day 0; or 3) Encore® on day 0 followed by Component® TS (ETS100) on day 100. Due to wide standard deviation in the weight of steers at the beginning of the demonstration, cattle were harvested in two groups. Approximately half of each treatment group was sorted by visual appraisal as to market readiness. Statistical interactions existed within treatment group between first and second harvest dates, therefore data were split and analyzed accordingly. In the first harvest group, ETS0 steers had higher marbling scores than ETS100 steers, and lower average daily gain than E steers and ETS100 steers. In the second harvest group, ETS0 steers had more fat at the 12th/13 rib than ETS100 steers, but did not differ from E steers. Marbling scores were also higher for ETS0 steers than either ETS100 or E steers in the second harvest group. Pooled data reveal that ETS0 steers had higher marbling scores than ETS100 steers and tended to have higher marbling scores than E steers. First harvest E and ETS100 steers had greater average daily gain than ETS0 steers. In the second harvest group, ETS0 steers had heavier final ending weights than E steers but did not differ from ETS100 steers. Final ending weights, rib eye area, fat thickness at the 12th/13th rib, KPH fat, and calculated yield grades did not differ among treatment groups in the pooled data.

Nonsurgical antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in moderate vs severe peri-implant defects: a clinical pilot study

OBJECTIVE Recent review articles have shown that open debridement is more effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis than closed therapy. However, surgery may result in marginal recession and compromise esthetics. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of nonsurgical antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in moderate vs severe defects. METHOD AND MATERIALS The study encompassed 16 patients with a total of 18 ailing implants. Ten of these implants showed moderate bone loss (< 5 mm; Group 1) and eight implants severe defects (5 through 8 mm; Group 2). All implants received aPDT without surgical intervention. At baseline and 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after therapy, peri-implant health was assessed including sulcus bleeding index (SBI), probing depth (PD), distance from implant shoulder to marginal mucosa (DIM), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Radiographic evaluation of distance from implant to bone (DIB) allowed comparison of peri-implant hard tissues after 6 months. RESULTS Baseline values for SBI were comparable in both groups. Three months after therapy, in both groups, SBI and CAL decreased significantly. In contrast, after 6 months, CAL and DIB increased significantly in Group 2, not in Group 1. However, DIM-values were not statistically different 6 months after therapy in both groups. CONCLUSION Within the limits of this 6-month study, nonsurgical aPDT could stop bone resorption in moderate peri-implant defects but not in severe defects. However, marginal tissue recession was not significantly different in both groups at the end of the study. Therefore, especially in esthetically important sites, surgical treatment of severe peri-implantitis defects seems to remain mandatory.

Dental phobia is no contraindication for oral implant therapy

OBJECTIVES Dental phobia is a psychological disease and a possible contraindication for implant therapy. The study aimed to show that implant therapy in dental-phobic patients (DP, test group) after adequate psychological and dental pretreatment (PDPT) is successfully possible and results in a similar implant prognosis as in nonfearful patients (NF, control group). METHOD AND MATERIALS 15 DP with PDPT and 15 NF were treated with dental implants and were re-evaluated 2 to 4 years after denture-mounting regarding: alteration of dental anxiety (Hierarchical Anxiety Questionnaire [HAQ], Visual Analog Scale [VAS]), patient satisfaction and compliance, implant success, and peri-implant health. Statistical tests of non-inferiority DP versus NF were performed with Hodges-Lehmann estimators and respective one-sided 97.5% confidence intervals of Moses, and pairwise testings with Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS The DP test group rated its anxiety significantly lower at follow- up than at baseline (PHAQ < .001). However, at follow-up, anxiety was still higher in DP than in NF (PHAQ = .046; PVAS < .001). Implant success at follow-up was 100%. Oral health was equally good in DP and NF patients. At follow-up, all patients were satisfied with implant therapy, but compliance was better for NF (100%) than for DP (73% dental checkup; 67% dental hygienist). CONCLUSION Implant therapy can be successfully performed in DP patients with PDPT as phobia is not negatively influenced by the invasive implant therapy. However, motivation for professional maintenance programs remains challenging.

Piezoelectric alveolar ridge-splitting technique with simultaneous implant placement: a cohort study with 2-year radiographic results

PURPOSE Extended grafting procedures in atrophic ridges are invasive and time-consuming and increase cost and patient morbidity. Therefore, ridge-splitting techniques have been suggested to enlarge alveolar crests. The aim of this cohort study was to report techniques and radiographic outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with a piezoelectric alveolar ridge-splitting technique (RST). Peri-implant bone-level changes (ΔIBL) of implants placed with (study group, SG) or without RST (control group, CG) were compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two cohorts (seven patients in each) were matched regarding implant type, position, and number; superstructure type; age; and gender and received 17 implants each. Crestal implant bone level (IBL) was measured at surgery (T0), loading (T1), and 1 year (T2) and 2 years after loading (T3). For all implants, ΔIBL values were determined from radiographs. Differences in ΔIBL between SG and CG were analyzed statistically (Mann-Whitney U test). Bone width was assessed intraoperatively, and vertical bone mapping was performed at T0, T1, and T3. RESULTS After a mean observation period of 27.4 months after surgery, the implant survival rate was 100%. Mean ΔIBL was -1.68 ± 0.90 mm for SG and -1.04 ± 0.78 mm for CG (P = .022). Increased ΔIBL in SG versus CG occurred mainly until T2. Between T2 and T3, ΔIBL was limited (-0.11 ± 1.20 mm for SG and -0.05 ± 0.16 mm for CG; P = .546). Median bone width increased intraoperatively by 4.7 mm. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study, it can be suggested that RST is a well-functioning one-stage alternative to extended grafting procedures if the ridge shows adequate height. ΔIBL values indicated that implants with RST may fulfill accepted implant success criteria. However, during healing and the first year of loading, increased IBL alterations must be anticipated.

Virtual implant planning in the edentulous maxilla: criteria for decision making of prosthesis design

OBJECTIVES To evaluate prosthetic parameters in the edentulous anterior maxilla for decision making between fixed and removable implant prosthesis using virtual planning software. MATERIAL AND METHODS CT- or DVT-scans of 43 patients (mean age 62 ± 8 years) with an edentulous maxilla were analyzed with the NobelGuide software. Implants (≥3.5 mm diameter, ≥10 mm length) were virtually placed in the optimal three-dimensional prosthetic position of all maxillary front teeth. Anatomical and prosthetic landmarks, including the cervical crown point (C-Point), the acrylic flange border (F-Point), and the implant-platform buccal-end (I-Point) were defined in each middle section to determine four measuring parameters: (1) acrylic flange height (FLHeight), (2) mucosal coverage (MucCov), (3) crown-Implant distance (CID) and (4) buccal prosthesis profile (ProsthProfile). Based on these parameters, all patients were assigned to one of three classes: (A) MucCov ≤ 0 mm and ProsthProfile≥45(0) allowing for fixed prosthesis, (B) MucCov = 0-5 mm and/or ProsthProfile = 30(0) -45(0) probably allowing for fixed prosthesis, and (C) MucCov ≥ 5 mm and/or ProsthProfile ≤ 30(0) where removable prosthesis is favorable. Statistical analyses included descriptive methods and non-parametric tests. RESULTS Mean values were for FLHeight 10.0 mm, MucCov 5.6 mm, CID 7.4 mm, and ProsthProfile 39.1(0) . Seventy percent of patients fulfilled class C criteria (removable), 21% class B (probably fixed), and 2% class A (fixed), while in 7% (three patients) bone volume was insufficient for implant planning. CONCLUSIONS The proposed classification and virtual planning procedure simplify the decision-making process regarding type of prosthesis and increase predictability of esthetic treatment outcomes. It was demonstrated that in the majority of cases, the space between the prosthetic crown and implant platform had to be filled with prosthetic materials.